On 20/08/2025 10:57, Yijie Yang wrote:

On 2025-08-19 17:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 19/08/2025 11:04, Yijie Yang wrote:

quoted

On 2025-08-19 15:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 19/08/2025 08:51, Yijie Yang wrote:

quoted

On 2025-08-19 14:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 19/08/2025 08:35, YijieYang wrote:

quoted

From: Yijie Yang <redacted>

Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet
functionality.

Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <redacted>
---

Why do you mix up DTS and net-next patches? This only makes difficult to
apply it, for no benefits.

The DTS changes and driver code modifications work together to achieve a
single purpose, so I included them in one patch series. Should I
consider splitting them into two separate series?

Of course yes. You are just making difficult to apply this. Patches are
completely independent and even your internal guideline asks to NOT
combine independent patches.

The challenge with splitting this series lies in the fact that it
attempts to reverse the incorrect semantics of phy-mode in both the
driver code and the device tree. Selecting only part of the series would
break Ethernet functionality on both boards.

And where did you explain that? Anyway, you did not achieve your goal,
because you broke the boards still.

Your patchset is not bisectable and does not follow standard submission
guidelines. DTS is always independent, please read carefully the docs.

The approach I'm taking will inevitably make the series non-bisectable, 

The series are non-bisectable now!

Do you understand the concept of commit and how patch is applied? How
splitting this patchset per two changes ANYTHING in bisectability?

And you keep arguing on this...

Best regards,
Krzysztof